<div>That's a good account of a fundamental divide on the nature of disagreement. I have a few responses.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>1) Perhaps there are places where "disagreement by deletion" is good. For example, in reports put out by credit bureaus, if a creditor said something about my behavior that is unduly negative, I may not merely want to add my side of the story, but also to delete the "wrong side."
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>2) But even this old system of reputation management had some measure of "disagreement by addition." You can, for example, put your account of a credit dispute on the report in case the bureau can't resolve the dispute (under the US's FCRA).
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>3) The key problem here is a difference between facts and opinions. <strong>Perhaps opinion statements always ought to invite disagreement by addition; perhaps facts invite disagreement by deletion. </strong>That may be why wikipedia is great for its science pages, but raises all sorts of concerns when it deletes bios on the basis of a group of editors' opinions about the subject's importance. That latter insistence on "fame" seems like a form of artificial scarcity to me.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>4) Finally, I have written a paper arguing that search engines need to give people a right to "disagree by addition." There are many "privacy" or "reputational" challenges arising out of search results. For example, one New York Times reporter recently recounted her unsuccessful effort to keep a webpage featuring an unflattering photograph of herself from appearing as a high-ranked web result when her name was a query on Google. Google won't take down the result--but shouldn't such a person be able to annotate it (with, say, an asterisk linking to a page with a better picture)?
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I propose a right not to suppress the results, but merely to add an asterisk next to the hyperlink directing web users to another webpage, which would lead to the complainant's own comment on the objectionable result. Such a right would be based on consumer protections guaranteed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Anyway, the paper is here: </div>
<div><a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=888327">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=888327</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>A critique is here: </div>
<div><a href="http://yalelawjournal.org/2007/09/08/grimmelmann.html">http://yalelawjournal.org/2007/09/08/grimmelmann.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>and I'll be happy to send anyone my response to the crititque--it will be published next month.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>best wishes,</div>
<div>--Frank</div>
<div>blogs @</div>
<div><a href="http://concurringopinions.com">concurringopinions.com</a></div>
<div><a href="http://madisonian.net">madisonian.net</a></div>
<div> </div>
<p></p>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 12/6/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Paul B. Hartzog</b> <<a href="mailto:paulbhartzog@gmail.com">paulbhartzog@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">conversation starter:<br><br>Deletionism, or Disagreement by Deletion<br><br>long time ago in my naive days
<br>Sunir Shah and I got talking about what was good about wikis.<br><br>one of the key things was:<br>1) disagreement by deletion<br>vs.<br>2) disagreement by addition<br><br>DbD was the old-school political philosophy of exclusive practice,
<br>i.e. deciding who is "in" and who is "out"<br><br>DbA was the new-school of pluralization, pluralism, and conversation,<br>i.e. including perspectival acknowledgement as part of the process<br><br>
I actually used to lecture that this was a KEY reason why wikis are<br>politically revolutionary, which is that by using DbA they<br>1) mesh with a multivocal world<br>2) function on inclusion instead of fragmentation (echo chamber)
<br><br>Now we see the "new" spaces, turning into "old" spaces<br>by adopting the same rules as the old.<br><br>Question:<br>Is this a historical inevitability. Will new open spaces that emerge,<br>ALWAYS become co-opted by the old rules systems? Will they
<br>ALWAYS be forced (as they scale?) to adopt the old rules?<br><br>thoughts?<br><br>-p<br><br>--------------------------------------------------------<br><a href="http://www.PaulBHartzog.org">http://www.PaulBHartzog.org
</a><br><a href="http://www.panarchy.com">http://www.panarchy.com</a><br><a href="mailto:PaulBHartzog@PaulBHartzog.org">PaulBHartzog@PaulBHartzog.org</a><br><a href="mailto:PaulBHartzog@panarchy.com">PaulBHartzog@panarchy.com
</a><br><a href="mailto:PHartzog@umich.edu">PHartzog@umich.edu</a><br>--------------------------------------------------------<br>The Universe is made up of stories, not atoms.<br> --Muriel Rukeyser<br><br>
See differently, then you will act differently.<br> --Paul B. Hartzog<br>--------------------------------------------------------<br>_______________________________________________<br>iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (
<a href="http://distributedcreativity.org">distributedcreativity.org</a>)<br><a href="mailto:iDC@mailman.thing.net">iDC@mailman.thing.net</a><br><a href="https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc">https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
</a><br><br>List Archive:<br><a href="http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/">http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/</a><br><br>iDC Photo Stream:<br><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
</a><br><br>RSS feed:<br><a href="http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc">http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc</a><br><br>iDC Chat on Facebook:<br><a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
</a><br><br>Share relevant URLs on <a href="http://Del.icio.us">Del.icio.us</a> by adding the tag iDCref<br></blockquote></div><br>